On May 3, 6:15 am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
other things).

AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.

You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.

Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.

There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
suggestion America lacks fortitude.

Resent away. Doesn't change the facts.

The US, Brits + more have had an armed presence in
Iraq (or around), since 1991, 18 years, in Afgh since
2001, 8 years. A lack of fortitude might be argued in
the way those conflicts were resolved.

PS:What's RAFS?

Real Aviators Flew Stoofs.
http://www.r-a-f-s.org/
Ken